Decided Nov 28, 2000
Case Ruling: CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMOND
Indianapolis operates vehicle checkpoints on its roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Mr. Edmond was stopped at such a checkpoint, and filed suit, claiming that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendmentís rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

Held:

(OíConnor, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, & Stevens)We previously held that brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. We now consider [applying that to] illegal narcotics. Because the checkpoint programís primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.

Dissent:

(Rehnquist, joined by Scalia & Thomas)The Stateís use of a drug-sniffing dog, according to the Courtís holding,
annuls what is otherwise plainly constitutional under our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: brief, standardized, discretionless, roadblock seizures of automobiles, seizures which effectively serve a weighty state interest with only minimal intrusion on the privacy of their occupants. Because these seizures serve the Stateís accepted and significant interests of preventing drunken driving and checking for driverís licenses and vehicle registrations, and because there is nothing in the record to indicate that the addition of the dog sniff lengthens these otherwise legitimate seizures, I dissent.

Additional dissent:

(Thomas)I am not convinced [the original drunk-driving & immigration roadblock cases] were correctly decided. I rather doubt that the Framers would have considered ďreasonableĒ a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing. But Mr. Edmond did not advocate the overruling [of the original cases, so I join in the dissent].